Any ruling is expected to treat wireless differently than wired broadband

Net
neutrality is a topic that raises some serious support from both
sides of the table. The cable and phone companies that provide the
majority of the nation's broadband connectivity don’t want the FCC
to impose rules and regulation on the industry. At the same time,
many consumers want the FCC to step in and force the broadband
providers and wireless carriers to treat all traffic equally rather
than forcing slower speeds for things like video streaming.

The
FCC had previously postponed
any rulings on net neutrality until after the November
elections were completed. Now that the elections are over, the FCC is
again moving to make a decision on net neutrality. The FCC is
considering web traffic rules for a meeting set for December reports
Reuters.

The
meeting was set for December 15, but that meeting has now been
postponed
until December 20. The delay of the meeting is to give the FCC
more time to set its agenda. Agendas for meetings are typically
released three weeks before a meeting is held. The FCC has not
confirmed that net neutrality will be the topic of its December
meeting.

Analyst Jeffery Silva said, "The signals out
there seem to be they are in fact contemplating a vote in December."
He continued, "The situation's very fluid at the present time,
and I think they're carefully considering the message they've
received from Capitol Hill and trying to figure out their next
step."

One of the core issues that the FCC is considering
is the reclassification of internet services under the same umbrella
as telephone service. The reclassification of broadband services in
that manner would give the FCC a better legal footing for forcing
broadband providers to follow its rules. The FCC's legal authority
over the broadband and wireless industries has been questioned in
court.

Reuters reports
that an analyst from Stifel Nicolaus stated in a research note the
FCC is likely to skip reclassification in favor of a net neutrality
bill that was developed by House Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman back
in September. The legislation is a draft right now and had
support from industry providers but was unable to move forward in the
House.

Analysts expect that any rules adopted for the industry
would treat wireless broadband differently. The expectation is that
the wireless providers would be allowed to put more focus on voice
calls over video and other services using their network.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

You're making this into something it isn't. This is the problem with NN. On one hand you have people defending the rights of private enterprise and "protecting free speech". On the other hand we must protect the unprepared and unequipped masses against an axis of evil media conglomerates as they threaten to crush...... free speech and expression. Whoever wins, the Internet "as we know it" is over. I can't help but roll my eyes.

quote: Then the FCC got involved and, like they do with any medium when they get involved, apply their "decency" standards too it.

Ever heard of the telephone? Do you know what a common carrier is?

quote: It's just a lightning rod issue to get people to go along with what, essentially, is the FCC taking over the Internet altogether.

No. It's f*cking not and you know it isn't deep down.

quote: without any forced regulations or government mandates, they've given us the closest thing to a censorship free zone.

Regulations, implicit and explicit, have been attached to "the Internet" for as long as it has existed.

Right just like this Administration didn't want to take over Health Care, the Banking industry, or Wall Street. Yeah it would be CRAZY to assume the FCC's intentions at this point are less than genuine. Why is the FCC trying to reclassify broadband then?

Are you just a shill or really this stupid? The FCC are nameless faceless bureaucratic scumbags who "job" is to tell Americans what they feel we should be exposed to and in what manner. And you want to hand the Internet over to them.

quote: Right just like this Administration didn't want to take over Health Care, the Banking industry, or Wall Street.

Dude, time to step away from your talking points. "Take over" of health care? Last I saw, not a single private insurer, hospital or doctor has been put on the government payroll. The banking industry? You must be confusing this administration with the previous one when the bailout was enacted. And a takeover of Wall Street? All of it? Really? Sheesh, I'm not sure you and I even live on the same planet.

quote: The FCC are nameless faceless bureaucratic scumbags

Actually, they are not nameless and they do have faces. The commissioners and top staff are all public figures. Why, they even have a website with biographies and other fascinating details. (You might want to check out these things called the "Internet" and "Google".) But I suppose it's easier just to say they are faceless monsters in order to cast aspersions.

Incidentally, the FCC is not "this administration". Here's another nuance that might have escaped you: It's something called an independent regulatory commission. By design, no administration has the ability to load the commission with friendly cronies, especially no administration in office for only two years. But I suppose informing yourself about the structure of the government would get in the way of those talking points.

You're an idiot, and have missed my entire point. The people do NOT get to elect who chairs the FCC, yet they have power over hundreds of millions. Does that sound right to you? What recourse do the American people have if they don't like the way the FCC is handling things? We can't vote them out, we can't cut their funding, we can't do anything about it.

Can you find me where in the Constitution individuals, not elected into office, are granted such wide discretionary authority?

quote: Incidentally, the FCC is not "this administration".

Where did I say "Obama's FCC" or even hinted that?

quote: By design, no administration has the ability to load the commission with friendly cronies,

Idiotic AND nieve, good combo. If you truly believe there is such a thing as an "independent regulatory commission" free of coercion and political power playing you're a bigger moron than I thought. Nothing in Washington is above the influence. Nothing.

Bell was a company protected by the government (A protected monopoly) for quite a number of years. Then it became politically advantageous to split them up.

Media conglomerates have nothing to gain to crush free speech and expression. If they do they'll get a massive public backlash and suits against them will make them back off. You can't sue the government and expect to win.

Remember Government be it local or Federal helped put these monopolies in place. And continue to protect them in most cases.